Responses
to Metz, Fütterer and Kaplinsky’s Correspondences in Nature, 27 June
2002

Kenneth Worthy

27 June 2002

In this document, I respond to Metz and Fütterer’s (Nature417, 897 - 898
(2002)) and Kaplinsky’s (Nature417, 898 (2002)) replies to the
Correspondence by me, Strohman and Billings (Nature417, 897
(2002)) regarding the Mexican maize transgenic introgression scandal, all
published in the 27 June 2002 edition of Nature. See http://www.nature.com. Although the replies
by these critics do not in my judgment represent a serious challenge to the
validity of our statements, for the record I offer the following clarifications
and responses:

§These authors hold in common the assumption of being
able to carry on scientific debate independently of economic relationships. Metz
and Fütterer, for instance, baldly assert that “our connections to industry are
irrelevant to the scientific issues”. In doing so, they blatantly disregard the
reasons for the existence of disclosure policies, such as Nature’s, in addition
to the plethora of research done by people such as Sheldon Krimsky into the ways
in which economic and political interests play out in the production of
scientific conclusions. Explorations into the social studies and history of
science would go a long way toward dispelling this assumption for these and perhaps
other scientists.

§Accompanying their simple denial that their ties to
industry may have influenced their participation in this debate is the false
assumption that they would be conscious of all such influences and intend their
consequences. Never have I or my co-authors asserted that any of the critique
authors (or Nature) were conscious of these influences or acted with the
intention of their own financial gain. For a more extensive treatment of the
subtleties of this issue, please see our longer article at http://nature.berkeley.edu/~kenw/maize/compromised.htm.

§Their replies depend on an unsupported attempt to
separate the scientific process (of which their critiques have been a part) from
the surrounding economic, political and other social circumstances, evidenced
in Metz and Fütterer’s opening statement, “Our concern was exclusively over the
quality of the scientific data and conclusions, which would have been the same
whatever the motivation of the criticism.” We refer back to our extended
analysis of the controversy (see http://nature.berkeley.edu/~kenw/maize/compromised.htm)
and ask, If Metz, et. al., were really concerned only with the quality of
scientific data and conclusions, why the public attacks? And, why did they so enthusiastically
respond to the controversy when there are thousands of other qualified
scientists (who had not been involved in an extended internal university-policy
debate with Quist and Chapela) available to do so?

§It is possible yet doubtful that Quist and Chapela were
wrong to not disclose Chapela’s involvement with PANNA in their original paper.
If Kaplinsky were to read Nature’s disclosure policy more carefully, he
would find that it relates to ways in which an author may gain economically
from a relationship with (or otherwise be materially supported by) an
organization. It is highly doubtful that Professor Chapela can expect
significant economic gain from involvement with a non-profit environmental
organization; the opposite would seem more likely. Relationships with
non-profit organizations (which by definition would not gain by an
author’s publication of findings, and thus would presumably not be relevant to
a disclosure policy) are not specifically mentioned in Nature’s policy.

§It is disingenuous of Metz and Fütterer to allege a grudge
between Chapela and Syngenta/Novartis and to simultaneously state that it would
be useless to introduce such information. Also, they should provide evidence
for the existence of such a grudge if they wish to imply that there is such a
thing.

§Metz and Fütterer attempt to downplay Fütterer’s
connection to TMRI and the CNR/TMRI controversy: “the other's (J. F.) alleged
link to TMRI relies entirely on someone else's former Berkeley association”. In
point of fact, that “someone else” is Wilhelm Gruissem, Fütterer’s current
research director (presumably at least aware of, if not active in supporting,
directing or condoning Fütterer’s engagement in this debate), and principle
architect of the CNR/TMRI relationship, whose current lab’s web site asserts
that it is in partnership with TMRI. These are not trivial facts in this
controversy.

§Metz and Fütterer’s statement that “Both of us
currently have research funding exclusively from the public sector.” conflicts
with the recent sponsorship by Novartis of research by Fütterer. Note that Nature’s
disclosure policy also refers to expected and future arrangements.

§Metz and Fütterer say “Worthy et al. wrongly
imply that private-sector funding strips us of integrity and legitimacy in the
arena of scientific discourse.” More precisely, our claim is quite explicitly
that financial and other relationships compromise the positions and perceptions
of independence and objectivity of some of the scientists involved in the
Mexican maize controversy. We do not imply that anyone is stripped of all
integrity. The main implication following from our conclusions is that
scientists with significant outside interests should either declare those
interests or excuse themselves from participation in the debate. It is hardly a
“threat to academic freedom” to call for these things; just the opposite is
true.

§Reminiscent of the use of detail to obfuscate the
validity of conclusions in the original critiques, Kaplinsky states at the
beginning that “Worthy and co-authors are incorrect.” implying that this is the
case simply because two of his co-authors, according to him, did not receive
any industry funding. Even if this is true, it does not change in the slightest
the result that Kaplinsky, et. al., according to Nature’s disclosure
policies, should have disclosed that at least some of them receive ag-biotech
industry funding. Incidentally, demonstrating that two of his co-authors did
not receive any TMRI funding might prove tricky given the way that TMRI funding
to graduate students in the PMB department is pooled. In any event, if it does
turn out to be untrue that two of them have in the past, do currently or expect
to in the future receive such funding, I apologize on behalf of myself and my
co-authors for the commission.